BC baby with 3 legal parents breaking new 'family' ground

[rvrepairnut]

As I said.Adoption is a different set of papers and circumstances.A adoptive parent has no business being on a birth certificate NONE. I get a real charge out of the poster whom calls people prejudice and wrong and the lot because
someone dares post a opposing opinion verses their obvious pro gay rights agenda

[Oxl3y]

As I said.Adoption is a different set of papers and circumstances.A adoptive parent has no business being on a birth certificate NONE. I get a real charge out of the poster whom calls people prejudice and wrong and the lot because
someone dares post a opposing opinion verses their obvious pro gay rights agenda

When posters can't back up their opinions with any kind of reasoning other than "its just wrong" it doesn't make a strong case that their opinion is one that matters. Thanks for the "pro gay agenda" comment I knew I had you pegged right.

[Bsuds]

So when someone is adopted who does show as being the birth parents on the birth certificate?
If it is the real birth parents then why do some people have such a hard time finding their birth parent(s)?

[rvrepairnut]

*Figure out how to use quotes, or stop using them/Jo*

[Xia33]

Does it really matter? Is it going to change that child's life? Do you really care what is on that piece of paper that has absolutely nothing to do with anyone other than the child and 3 adults involved. A lot of things have and are changing in this world...main thing, imo, is that the child is loved and cared for and it matters not that there are 3 adults involved or a hundred....it isn't a matter of being "pro gay" or not. good lord.

[Piecemaker]

I think having 3 parents on a birth certificate will be a rarity, however it seems fitting given the circumstances of this family.
There are also plenty of birth certificates out there with just one parent listed. The line for the father is filled with "unknown". (Which may not actually be the case.) Others put the name of current boyfriend/spouse even though they know that person is not the biological father.
In cases of adoption a new birth certificate is issued with the name the adoptive parents choose for their child as the child's name and it lists them as the "parents". The birth parents and the child's first name are not part of that record. The adoptive parents become the legal parent of the child, with the same rights and responsibilities for the child "as if born" to them.

On a related matter, when it comes to parental responsibility a step-parent can be required to pay child support and can be granted custody, shared custody, access, etc., in the event of a marital breakdown. One does not need to be on a birth certificate to be considered a "parent" under the law.

[Bsuds]

In cases of adoption a new birth certificate is issued with the name the adoptive parents choose for their child as the child's name and it lists them as the "parents". The birth parents and the child's first name are not part of that record. The adoptive parents become the legal parent of the child, with the same rights and responsibilities for the child "as if born" to them.

Thanks, that's what I thought it was but wasn't sure.

[Oxl3y]

Why should the birth certificate only have DNA contributors on it? What possible reason can you come up with? How will having more than 2 parents on there destroy this child's life? You don't answer these questions because you can't or rather you can't answer them without looking sadly prejudiced.

It's your right to your opinion, but when your opinion is "It's Unnatural!!" then it's my right to completely ignore your opinion.

[rvrepairnut]

Why should the birth certificate only have DNA contributors on it? What possible reason can you come up with? How will having more than 2 parents on there destroy this child's life? You don't answer these questions because you can't or rather you can't answer them without looking sadly prejudiced.

It's your right to your opinion, but when your opinion is "It's Unnatural!!" then it's my right to completely ignore your opinion.

correct as it is mine to ignore your ridiculous response and opinion.No one said it would destroy this kids life where on earth do u dream that up? The OP asked opinions on who should be listed on a BIRTH Cert and I say only the actual DNA contributers.

[Oxl3y]

correct as it is mine to ignore your ridiculous response and opinion.No one said it would destroy this kids life where on earth do u dream that up? The OP asked opinions on who should be listed on a BIRTH Cert and I say only the actual DNA contributers.

Why? You still have never answered that but that's OK because everyone knows why.

As Piecemaker pointed out currently the birth certificate doesn't even necessarily have who the child's birth parents are just who it's parents are. Therefore in this situation its only natural to have 3 people on the birth certificate.

[rvrepairnut]

Therefore in this situation its only natural to have 3 people on the birth certificate.

natural?maybe based on your opinion but very unnatural based on my opinion

[Oxl3y]

natural?maybe based on your opinion but very unnatural based on my opinion

It's your right to your opinion, but when your opinion is "It's Unnatural!!" then it's my right to completely ignore your opinion.

"It's unnatural" is not a valid reason for your opinion, its a prejudice, an outdated way of thinking that deserves to be stamped out. It's a fallback for the ignorant when they don't have any legitimate reason to be concerned about something involving a homosexual couple. You can't think of a good reason to be against it so you just say "it's unnatural".

[rvrepairnut]

"It's unnatural" is not a valid reason for your opinion, its a prejudice, an outdated way of thinking that deserves to be stamped out. It's a fallback for the ignorant when they don't have any legitimate reason to be concerned about something involving a homosexual couple. You can't think of a good reason to be against it so you just say "it's unnatural".

Again its just your opinion verses mine.You people are so self righteous . I believe I have a good and reasonable reason to be against it/.Its self serving biased BH,s like you whom wont accept any opinion except your own or anyone whom agrees with your type. Why do u think your right and iam wrong? what makes you think you have that right?? I don't care what opinion you have. I have the given right to oppose your opinion and state mine.If you don't agree that's one thing but to constantly natter away here about how your 100% in the right and Iam 100% in the wrong is just plain ridiculous
you left wingers always bring prejudice or racism into the equation.Its not about that.its about whom should be on a BC
you keep yapping I don't have a legitimate reason? Is that based on law or based on your own biased thinking?

[Oxl3y]

Again its just your opinion verses mine.You people are so self righteous . I believe I have a good and reasonable reason to be against it/.Its self serving biased BH,s like you whom wont accept any opinion except your own or anyone whom agrees with your type. Why do u think your right and iam wrong? what makes you think you have that right?? I don't care what opinion you have. I have the given right to oppose your opinion and state mine.If you don't agree that's one thing but to constantly natter away here about how your 100% in the right and Iam 100% in the wrong is just plain ridiculous
you left wingers always bring prejudice or racism into the equation.Its not about that.its about whom should be on a BC
you keep yapping I don't have a legitimate reason? Is that based on law or based on your own biased thinking?

My opinion is backed up with logic and common sense yours is based off ignorance and prejudice. You can present no logical reason behind your opinion that only DNA contributors should be on birth certificates which has already been proven to not even be how things are done currently.

I might be able to agree with your points if you had any but you don't even have the decency to attempt a supporting argument you just parrot off 'it's unnatural". So until you can prove that you have an argument worth discussing then yes you are 100% wrong.

[rvrepairnut]

*removed*



back on topic please! thanks/ferri